Becks gets back to us on her tour of the MoMA conservation studio (previously mentioned here):
Considering how you always hear about how light can damage works of art, I really expected that they would want to protect the works they were restoring from sunlight. On the contrary, the lab was designed to let in as much Northern light as possible so that the conservators could assess pigments and materials using natural light.Funny, I also expected something off a CSI set, with lots of bones piled up in the corners. Even in art conservation, bones are industry standard—any work that involves tiny little tools calls for lots of human skulls.
Anyway, as I understand the light concern, pigments that absorb light mostly convert absorbed light into heat—so, no sweat, if you will. But even the fairly energy-resistant molecules that make up the inorganic pigmentation used today in the plastic arts undergo the occassional chemical change, usually in the form of oxidation.
Now, I understand why conservators would need light for their work. But why would full-spectrum white light be less cause for concern than a more rarefied light? For the record, I've never heard of photons. Recalling even this much chemistry has brought me dangerously close to the edge of systems failure.
The rest of the conservation studio? Total bat-cave. The space is lined with lead and features special paints on the filing cabinets that do not emit gases. Unlike the rude thing near your desk.
Posted by Kriston at October 11, 2005 1:23 PMVery interesting. It all sounds standard from my experiences at the places I've worked and what I've seen as a member of the New England Conservation Association. The light, of course, is key - you're not going to be able to see colors and surface textures properly without good natural light, so conservators generally wind up with these wonderful spaces with skylights that make everyone else envious. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if for especially sensitive objects - works on paper of various kinds, for instance - that they have a separate area.
And yes, human skulls are essential. Most conservators swear by either those of children or virgins, but some insist that adult males will do as well. Others say it doesn't matter as look as you have a high-quality cauldron. It's all very complicated and controversial, I can't follow it.
Posted by: JL at October 11, 2005 1:51 PMJL is right about conservators needing natural light for their work, and northern light provides the "best" light to match colors accurately for tasks such as in-painting. Fluorescents and incandescents provide horrible lighting for delicate work.
As for the windows, I would be awfully surprised if they didn't have a UV-filtering coating on them. (UV light being a more energized light wave that causes the most damage, like my sunburn) This way, the exposure to natural light will be significantly less damaging.
If you want skulls and bones, you should try to get a behind-the-scenes tour of the Natural History Museum's Anthro holdings. There are hallways with bones from floor to ceiling. Really creepy.
Posted by: Fletch at October 12, 2005 12:23 AMI like Rainer Maria too.
Posted by: wwc at October 12, 2005 8:36 AMYeah, UV blockers would be standard as well. I have a funny story about UV blockers, actually . . . might need to post that.
Posted by: JL at October 12, 2005 1:04 PM